Who can build a 100mil Harry Potter land if they want to?

[wikiverse]

Just now, AlexB said:

Nothing says fun quite like taking your family to an asylum for some shock therapy.

Oh do try to keep up. You aren't the first to suggest Harry Potter. Its NOT POSSIBLE. Despite WB being the production company responsible for HP, Universal own the rights to all theme park attractions and themed areas. Theme Park licensing is completely separate to film and film merchandise.

But VR isn't WB - the just License the WB name to have a WB Movie-themed park.

VR could license the HP theme park attractions from Universal for exclusive use in Australia, and still have a WB Movie-themed park because WB made the films.  It is entirely possible in a legal sense if VR wanted to - in the same way that Disney/Marvel Licensed X-Men characters for use in the Deadpool movie from Fox, and Spiderman for use in the new Avengers from Sony.

But that still doesn't change the fact that WB own a number of Film Franchises that VR could license for attractions that aren't DC Comics.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

^Well - we all know how much you adore darkrides, walkthroughs and monorails - but if you head for JL3D, theres a queue to the left for something called 'green lantern' - if you go down that queue, you'll notice that Sinestro has been in the park for a few years now...

1 minute ago, wikiverse said:

But VR isn't WB - the just License the WB name to have a WB Movie-themed park.

VR could license the HP theme park attractions from Universal for exclusive use in Australia, and still have a WB Movie-themed park because WB made the films.  It is entirely possible in a legal sense if VR wanted to - in the same way that Disney/Marvel Licensed X-Men characters for use in the Deadpool movie from Fox, and Spiderman for use in the new Avengers from Sony.

But that still doesn't change the fact that WB own a number of Film Franchises that VR could license for attractions that aren't DC Comics.

Yeah - you've got as much hope of Universal licensing HP to WBMW as you do getting Mickey Mouse licensed to Dreamworld.

[joz]

Amazingly distribution and theme park rights aren't the same thing.  I hope that's something new CEO might be able to sort out, getting better access to the Village movie library, particularly ones that it is partnered with Warner Brothers on.

[wikiverse]

5 hours ago, AlexB said:

Nothing says fun quite like taking your family to an asylum for some shock therapy.

Oh do try to keep up. You aren't the first to suggest Harry Potter. Its NOT POSSIBLE. Despite WB being the production company responsible for HP, Universal own the rights to all theme park attractions and themed areas. Theme Park licensing is completely separate to film and film merchandise.

 

10 minutes ago, Brad2912 said:

Gummy Bears is a Disney property. Would never happen.. geeees!!! Better chance of a ride themed to Harry P...

There seems to be an idea running through these threads that TimeWarner don't own the theme park rights to Harry Potter.

They do.  They own everything to do with Harry Potter, except for the book publishing rights.

WBMW used to have a Harry Potter themed attraction - from 2001-2003.

TimeWarner license the rights to Universal on a park-by-park basis because TimeWarner do not have a theme park business - instead licensing their IP to companies like VRTP.

Universal do not own the rights, have never owned the rights and do not have world-wide rights.

Warner Bros. Studios in London have their own Harry Potter themed attraction 'The making of Harry Potter' at their studios where all of the movies were filmed.  It opened in 2012 - after the opening of the Universal attraction in 2010 and is completely unrelated to Universal.

VR could license HP from Warner Bros. but the ongoing licensing fees, combined with the fact that the HP film series has concluded have likely led VR to conclude that it is better to invest in the DC universe given the number of upcoming films due for release over the next 8-10 years.

 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

12 minutes ago, wikiverse said:

 

There seems to be an idea running through these threads that TimeWarner don't own the theme park rights to Harry Potter.

They do.  They own everything to do with Harry Potter, except for the book publishing rights.

WBMW used to have a Harry Potter themed attraction - from 2001-2003.

TimeWarner license the rights to Universal on a park-by-park basis because TimeWarner do not have a theme park business - instead licensing their IP to companies like VRTP.

Universal do not own the rights, have never owned the rights and do not have world-wide rights.

Warner Bros. Studios in London have their own Harry Potter themed attraction 'The making of Harry Potter' at their studios where all of the movies were filmed.  It opened in 2012 - after the opening of the Universal attraction in 2010 and is completely unrelated to Universal.

VR could license HP from Warner Bros. but the ongoing licensing fees, combined with the fact that the HP film series has concluded have likely led VR to conclude that it is better to invest in the DC universe given the number of upcoming films due for release over the next 8-10 years.

 

You're right about one thing - Time Warner does OWN the theme park rights. I misspoke. But unfortunately, here is where you're wrong - Time Warner have granted those rights to and Universal holds the EXCLUSIVE LICENSE for theme parks and all related attractions.

Although WBMW did have a HP experience attraction for a couple of years (2001-2003), this was before the license agreement with Universal was made, which was announced publicly in 2007.

Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1262449/000119312507178559/dex1041.htm

\To wit: 

Quote

(i) Within the Themed Area:

(1)

Rides, attractions, signage, facades, atmospheric elements and themed areas;

(2)

Consumables;

(3)

Retail stores, kiosks and other retail stands;

(4)

Themed restaurants, portable food cart locations and other food stands;

(5)

Atmospheric strolling costumed characters (e.g., generic Hogwarts students), ****;

(6)

Clips (subject to Section 4.5 below);

(7)

“Green screen” photographic venues at which images of guests will be incorporated within Clips or Stills (defined below) made available by Licensor to Licensee for such purpose, each of which may contain images of environments and sets from the Movies, as defined below, and each of which may contain character images of the talent from the Movies (subject to Licensor approval in its sole and absolute, but good faith, discretion and provided that no image of a guest may touch, gesture at, interact with or be “morphed” into or on, any character image of any talent from the Movies), which “green screen” photographic images shall be sold to such guests as souvenir merchandise; and

(8)

Street entertainers and movie props (and, if available and if approved by Licensor, in the sole and absolute but good faith discretion of Licensor, sets and costumes) integrated into the themed environment.

(ii) Within the Theme Park (but not within other themed lands or islands at the Theme Park, other than the “Port of Entry” portion of the Theme Park), the Themed Area and the Resort:

(1)

Licensed Products;

(2)

Licensed Premiums;

(3)

Printed matter, including but not limited to, tickets, brochures, Theme Park maps, menus and signage; and

(4)

For the press event associated with the Grand Opening and thereafter for private events within the Theme Park (i.e., events that are not open to the general public), atmospheric strolling costumed characters (e.g., generic Hogwarts students), ****.

(iii) Within and outside the Theme Park, the Themed Area and the Resort:

(1)

In advertising, marketing and promotion for the Theme Park, the Themed Area and/or the Resort, including, without limitation, sweepstakes, signage, brochures, newspapers, magazines and other print media, billboards, radio and television, in cinema and on the internet;

(2)

Atmospheric strolling costumed characters (e.g., generic Hogwarts students), ****, at trade shows and promotional events that are open to the trade only (e.g., travel agency conventions); and

(3)

Display elements at the retail stores located near the main entrance/exit of the Theme Park and the retail stores located at Universal CityWalk Orlando and at the Universal Orlando on site resort hotels and at Resort-themed stores at Orlando International Airport and at the liquidation stores in Orlando at which a variety of merchandise based on Resort attractions and characters are sold.

So... pretty much ANYTHING inside a theme park, et al:

Quote

2.	LICENSE AND OTHER RIGHTS:

2.1 Subject to the restrictions, limitations, reservations and conditions and Licensor’s approval rights set forth in this Agreement, Licensor hereby grants to Licensee and Licensee hereby accepts for the Term of this Agreement, a license to utilize the Licensed Property solely in connection with the development, construction and operation of the Themed Area and for the Licensed Uses. The licenses and rights granted pursuant to this Section 2 shall be exclusive in relation to use of the Licensed Property in connection with theme parks, amusement parks, water parks and stand-alone themed venues that are smaller than typical theme parks but are extensively themed and contain rides, retail and/or food service, similar to those found in a theme park (e.g., the “Star Trek: The Experience” attraction at the Las Vegas Hilton), during the Term within the Territory. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Licensor may use, or permit others to use, the Licensed Property in connection with a traveling museum-quality exhibition that may be presented at museums, convention/exhibition halls and other venues.

The current license term runs until July 2019, with two five year options, provided the park doesn't default - which they're unlikely to do for the same reason Orlando will retain its license to use the Marvel characters exclusively on the east coast.

So Time Warner can't just decide to allow another park to use the HP license. Universal and Time Warner agreed to exclusive use by Universal, and the only way they'll release the exclusivity is if they choose not to renew the option (which would suggest the theme is losing its popularity anyway), or if their standards drop below the expectations outlined in the contract (and if Dreamworld can maintain the Dreamworks standards, the chances of Universal defaulting on HP is highly unlikely).

Given Hollywood was announced in 2011, with Japan announced in 2012, the HP juggernaut at Universal is unlikely to end anytime soon.

[RossL]

@AlexB

 

Quote

(z) “Territory” means the Theme Park and all areas within a two hundred fifty (250) mile radius around the Theme Park.

This license only covers the area surrounding the park in Florida.  Nowhere else in the world.

[wikiverse]

That contract is exclusive to Universal Studios Orlando.

7 minutes ago, AlexB said:

The current license term runs until July 2019, with two five year options, provided the park doesn't default - which they're unlikely to do for the same reason Orlando will retain its license to use the Marvel characters exclusively on the east coast.

So Time Warner can't just decide to allow another park to use the HP license.

Given Hollywood was announced in 2011, with Japan announced in 2012, the HP juggernaut at Universal is unlikely to end anytime soon.

The contract that you linked to is only for Universal Studios Orlando. Which means they are licensing it on a park-by-park basis.

"(z) “Territory” means the Theme Park and all areas within a two hundred fifty (250) mile radius around the Theme Park."

Given that WB doesn't own any theme parks (They used to own Six Flags parks but sold them to Premier Parks in 1998), and only licenses their IP to third parties like VR, it makes sense that they would allow Universal to use it because WB has no other use for it.

Since there are no Universal Parks in Australia or the UK, WB would be able to license it to VR in the same way that they have created their own attraction at their studios in London.  There is no way that TimeWarner would sell rights to Universal in territories that Universal does not operate.  I've dealt with Warner's licensing people in the past for music and TV clips and they are bastards about everything.

I wouldn't be surprised if VR thought it wasn't worth the Capital investment or licensing fees to build and maintain an attraction for a movie franchise that was coming to an end.

I think it is much more likely that VR has paid a Licensing fee that incorporates all DC characters (in the Justice League/Batman/GL series), like they did with Looney Tunes, and they're just trying to maximise their return on that investment by theming everything to DC without having to pay additional Licensing fees.

I think that's why you'll occasionally see events that are themed to non-DC/Looney Tunes properties, but not permanent attractions.  The only exception might be for a Scooby-doo expansion for the reason listed above.

It's not that VR can't access HP, it's that they won't. (Most likely because they can't afford it.) 

So you're correct in that we won't likely see a HP themed attraction at WBMW - at least not for a long time, but I can't see any reason that it is because of Universal, it seems to be more because of VR.

 

 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

14 hours ago, wikiverse said:

WB would be able to license it to VR in the same way that they have created their own attraction at their studios in London.

Obviously that particular license agreement pre dates Hollywood and Japan. I'm open to someone supplying a current copy of the document since they've now licensed it in three different areas. 

As for the london attraction, this isn't proof that Universal doesn't have exclusivity - the terms specifically allow Time Warner to 

Quote

use, or permit others to use, the Licensed Property in connection with a traveling museum-quality exhibition that may be presented at museums, convention/exhibition halls and other venues.

Leavesden was the site of most of the filming for the series, and hosts many film sets. Regardless of geography, I'd say they could easily do that without needing to define territory, but you have made your point and I stand corrected - at least until the current agreement surfaces.